Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Geo = 3%, not .3% of total US electricity production.
therefore "Geothermal " [receives] ... .69, NOT "6.9 times the subsidies of Nuclear." Unfortunately Geo makes sense, not immediate profits. How about a "Project Hades" to demonstrate engineering and technical methodology where profits ($ & environmental) are little more than five miles from everywhere on earth? Unlimited energy, not disposable and transient commodities.

Compare the costs (direct and indirect impacts, $ and environmental) of fossil/nuc fuels, wind & solar with the costs of geo. AND the benefits (same). For the next 40 years.

Don't leave out the Fossil Fuel/Nuc Industrial Complexity: Mine/drill, refine, store, transport, store, burn/heat, dispose of waste and internal costs/complexities of each of those process steps.

After you're done with a 75MW Geo plant, all the energy you'll ever need is available directly beneath your feet, with the added benefit of energy independence, no FFIC, no LLIC and no GHGs. Oops, sorry for the advocacy. Try it yourself:

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

The F-35 is the NY Times and my favorite boondoggle program -- it's ABSURD -- and yet it goes on because our Congressional campaigns are financed by it.

Hey, FIVE F-35s for every Congress member -- @ $1,000,000,000 each ... what fun! Lockheed/Raytheon/Boeing Industrial Complex. It's ABSURD to continue this program even if you're the highest flyin' hawk. If you like flying machines, we could buy 100,000 drones to spy on all the rest of us (200 for every Congressional district!). Or, we could pay for the VA and DoD retirements for decades.

Or, we could put 3 deep geothermal EGS plants in every Congressional district and power the US "forever" with NO greenhouse gases and no Commodities Industrial Complex, no XL, no frackin', no gulfin', no No.Dakin'.

I love you guys, but pullease spend our money on something just a bit less absurd.

_____

PS: All we talk about are the contract costs ... operational/program costs are also ABSURD. These babies are so cute and so delicate and so ROLEX, that maintenance and fuel go into the $10,000s/hr of operation. Hey, my plain old corporate jets cost me only $5 million each and run only $1000/hr. ( And we can write it off ... you can't!)

F35

Sequestration kicked in on Friday—and we think you’ll agree that these blanket cuts are not a smart way to make decisions about federal spending.

Congress doesn’t think so either. As they negotiate the budget in the coming weeks, we need to remind them that just a few smart cuts from the bloated Pentagon budget could easily account for the $1.5 trillion in cuts that the sequester mandates over the next 10 year.

How? Take the F-35 program, the most expensive and least effective weapons system in history. The total lifetime cost of the F-35 program is $1.5 trillion—making it equal to the entire 10 years of cuts mandated by the sequester.

The F-35 program has been grounded twice and has a history of being overdue and over-budget. Why should we continue to throw money at outdated and ineffective weapons systems like the F-35 while cutting vital social programs instead?